dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pipeline Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 29, 2023 In Re: 28050923 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pipeline engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this 
EB-2 immigrant classification. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner 's endeavor would have national importance, that she is well-positioned to 
advance that endeavor, or that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer 
requirement in this case. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual 's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. Section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, USCIS 
may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
(1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would 
benefit the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to continue working as a pipeline engineer in the oil and gas industry in the United 
States, either as a consultant or as an employee of an unspecified company. The Director concluded 
that while the Petitioner qualifies as an EB-2 professional, she does not meet any of the prongs of the 
Dhanasar test. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief contending that the Director violated the 
Administrative Procedure Act (AP A) by using boilerplate language and arbitrarily disregarding the 
"voluminous evidence" provided. 1 Upon review, the Petitioner has not overcome the grounds of 
denial. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar test, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
When determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance, we examine the 
specific impact of that proposed endeavor. Id. For example, an endeavor may qualify if it has national 
implications within a particular field, or if it has significant potential to have a substantial economic 
effect, especially in an economically depressed area. Id. In this instance, the Director concluded that 
while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, she did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish that endeavor's national impact. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief emphasizing the importance of the oil and gas industry, and 
states that this establishes the national importance of her endeavor. However, the importance of the 
Petitioner's industry relates to the merit of her endeavor, not its potential national importance, which 
is a separate consideration under the first prong Dhanasar. The pertinent question when assessing an 
endeavor's importance is the impact that will be specifically attributable to it. Id.; see generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that an endeavor may 
rise to the level of national importance if it has significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare 
or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field 
of study). 
Similarly, while the appellate brief discusses the general importance of pipeline engineers at length 
and notes the shortage of such workers, the importance of an endeavor is not dictated by the occupation 
in which a noncitizen will be employed. 2 In Dhanasar, the noncitizen' s work as a science teacher was 
found to have substantial merit but did not qualify him under the first prong because the evidence did 
not show how that work would impact the field of science education more broadly. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. In this case, we cannot assess whether the Petitioner's work will have 
a nationally important impact because she has not specified a cognizable endeavor. Instead, she states 
1 The Petitioner does not cite any specific section of the AP A that the Director allegedly violated. We further note that 
evidence is assessed by its quality, not its quantity. Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. at 376 ( quoting Matter of E-M-, 
20 T&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). In adjudicating petitions pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, 
we examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context 
of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Id. The Director's decision 
notice reflects the completion of such an analysis by specifically addressing the contents of the Petitioner's documentation. 
2 We further note that the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification 
process. Therefore, a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that 
workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 
885; see also 20 C.F.R. § 656.1. 
2 
that she will work as an independent consultant or an employee for an unspecified company as a 
pipeline engineer, and does not define what actual work she will perform within the occupation of 
pipeline engineering. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra at F.5(D)(l) (noting that an 
endeavor is more specific than an occupation and that petitioners should explain what specific work 
areas, projects, or goals their endeavor will involve). The purpose of a national interest waiver is not 
to facilitate a petitioner's U.S. job search. Anyone seeking such a waiver must identify "the specific 
endeavor" that they propose to undertake, so that endeavor's impact can be assessed. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
An endeavor may have national importance if it has national implications in its field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Id. The appellate brief 
claims that the underlying petition's support letters demonstrate what impact her endeavor will have 
on her field, but the letters do not support this assertion. 3 First, none of the letters address the 
Petitioner's endeavor except in the most general terms, stating that her abilities will make her a capable 
and valuable pipeline engineer in the future. Second, the letters' information about the Petitioner's 
past work does not establish that its impact extended be):'.ond her emplo]ers to impact the broader oil 
and gas field. For example, the letter from L-R, ofl details how the Petitioner 
contributed to a project which he describes as a "breakthrough in the use of solid coiled tubing in deep 
water." However, the only concrete impact he describes is that this technolo~ was subsequently used 
in several otherl !projects. While the letter states thatl land its project client 
published professional and academic articles based on the knowledge gained through that work, there 
is no indication that the publications influenced anyone else in the field or that any such influence 
could have been attributed to the Petitioner's work, given that she was not involved in writing them. 
Furthermore, as noted above, the Petitioner has not specified what work her endeavor will entail, and 
so it is not apparent that she will continue to work in the area of solid coiled tubing. In this and the 
other support letters provided, the writers do not specify how the Petitioner's work will have an impact 
on her field rising to the level of national importance. 
Similar concerns apply to the claims regarding the Petitioner's role in creating and assessing training 
for engineers atl I Contrary to the appellate brief: it is not apparent that this work will 
go "towards addressing the shortage of personnel and enhancing the expertise within the Oil & Gas 
field" on a national level, especially because the Petitioner has not specified that she will continue to 
work for I I The materials in the record do not indicate what specific impact the 
Petitioner's prior training work at I kvill have on the oil and gas field. They also contain 
no information about where the Petitioner intends to work upon visa approval, whether she will act as 
a trainer, or who she will train in what skills. Because she has not submitted probative, relevant, and 
credible evidence of the nature and scope of her endeavor, the Petitioner has not established how or to 
what extent her endeavor will impact the national shortage of oil and gas engineers. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner states that "[b ]y being employed in such an important company, she impacts the 
industry through her dedication to her work there," and that "her work for a prominent company like 
Iamplifies the significance of her contributions, as her work reaches various projects and 
clients." To support this claim, the Petitioner cites to Matter ofF-E-, 2017 WL 1281865 (AAO Mar. 
3 While we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
I 
20, 2017), a case in which a metallurgical engineer established that his impact would extend beyond 
the mine where he worked to affect the mining industry more broadly. 
First, we note that this decision was not published as precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS 
officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(e). Second, the facts in Matter of F-E- are 
distinguishable from those in the current case. In Matter of F-E-, the noncitizen provided 
documentation establishing that the mine where he worked operated on such a scale that it affected 
the U.S. mining industry as a whole. Matter ofF-E-, 2017 WL 1281865, at *3-4. While the Petitioner 
claims that I Iis similarly important to the oil and gas industry, she only provides 
documentation indicating that it is a large and profitable corporation, not that it occupies an especially 
influential space in the industry. Unlike the noncitizen in Matter of F-E-, the Petitioner has not 
established that her employer or work unit is so prominent that its work necessarily affects the oil and 
gas industry as a whole or that her proposed endeavor will specifically do the same. 
Furthermore, as noted above, even ifl Iwere as prominent as the mine in Matter ofF-E-, 
which the evidence does not support, the Petitioner has not specified that her endeavor would be to 
continue working there. Instead, she has stated that her endeavor would be to either work as an 
independent consultant or as an employee of an unspecified comf any in the oil and gas industry. As 
such, we decline to accept the argument that I importance to the U.S. petroleum 
industry will also inhere to the Petitioner's endeavor. 
Finally, the noncitizen in Matter of F-E- provided documentation of novel mining processes he had 
developed, specific projects he proposed to lead to implement those processes, and the potential impact 
of those projects on the broader mining industry. Id. By contrast, the Petitioner has provided no 
specific information about what work her endeavor will entail beyond stating the occupation she will 
be employed in, and has not provided relevant, probative, and credible documentation of any specific 
advancement or innovation that the endeavor will bring to her field. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. She therefore has not established that her endeavor will impact her field on a level that 
rises to national importance. 
An endeavor may have national importance if it has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
have other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The appellate brief states that the Petitioner's work increases 
efficiency and decreases costs for her employers, which creates various benefits for the U.S. economy 
due to the "interconnectedness" of the oil and gas industry. However, neither the brief nor the provided 
materials quantify the specific economic benefit that the Petitioner's endeavor proposes to have. The 
Petitioner has not established that her proposed work, specifically, will create a significant economic 
benefit for the United States. Id. 
Finally, we acknowledge the petition's documentation of the Petitioner's professional abilities and 
accomplishments. However, these factors relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar test, which is 
concerned with the Petitioner's ability to carry out her endeavor. They do not establish what impact 
the endeavor would have. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that her endeavor would be 
nationally important. 
4 
Because the Petitioner has not established her eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address her eligibility under the other two prongs and hereby reserve those issues. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As such, we conclude 
that she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5